People Of The State Of Nevada v. Ford
Filing
4
ORDER that the petition shall be DISMISSED without prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action without prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/15/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
10
Named Petitioner,
11
12
Case No. 2:12-cv-01854-MMD-CWH
ORDER
v.
RUDY FORD a/k/a RUDY ALLEN,
13
Named Respondent.
14
This habeas matter filed by a detainee or inmate then being held in a local jail in
15
16
Boulder, Colorado comes before the Court for initial review.
17
The papers presented are subject to multiple substantial defects.
18
First, petitioner Rudy Ford1 did not either pay the $5.00 filing fee or submit an
19
application to proceed in forma pauperis. He must do one or the other to properly
20
commence an action in federal court.
21
Second, petitioner failed to use the required habeas petition form as required by
22
Local Rule LSR 3-1. Petitioner instead used a state court form for an application for a
23
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Over and above the fact that the petition is
24
not filed on this Court=s required form, such a writ has nothing to do with a habeas
25
petition challenging a petitioner=s custody. A writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum
26
instead directs that a defendant be transported in order to be prosecuted, not released.
27
1
28
While Ford designates himself as defendant, he is a petitioner in seeking habeas
relief.
1
Third, petitioner failed to name an appropriate respondent. Petitioner cannot sue
2
the State of Nevada, or the State designated as the People of the State of Nevada, in
3
federal court, even on a petition for habeas relief.
4
recognized by the Eleventh Amendment bars all actions against a State in federal court,
5
regardless of the relief sought. See,e.g., Pennhurst State School & Hospital v.
6
Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101 (1984).
7
The state sovereign immunity
Due to these multiple substantial defects, the petition in this improperly-
8
commenced action will be dismissed without prejudice.
9
dismissal without prejudice would materially affect the analysis of either the timeliness
10
of a promptly-filed new petition or other issues therein. The online docket of the state
11
district court reflects that the Nevada state judgment of conviction referenced in the
12
current petition was entered on April 23, 2004.
13
proceeding, or proceeding for other collateral review was initiated within one year of the
14
expiration of the time for filing a direct appeal. A dismissal without prejudice thus will
15
not materially affect the analysis of timeliness or other issues regarding a challenge
16
either to the original judgment of conviction and/or to any more recent proceedings in
17
connection with efforts to extradite Ford to Nevada.
18
19
It does not appear that a
No appeal, state post-conviction
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the petition shall be DISMISSED without
prejudice.
20
IT FURTHER IS ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, as
21
jurists of reason would not find the dismissal of this improperly-commenced action to be
22
either debatable or incorrect, given the absence of any substantial prejudice to
23
petitioner from the dismissal without prejudice.
24
25
26
The Clerk of Court shall enter final judgment accordingly, dismissing this action
without prejudice.
DATED THIS 15th day of November 2012.
27
28
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?